The family of a woman who was shot to death by her boyfriend are arguing Cook County’s sheriff and chief judge cannot claim immunity to escape a civil lawsuit seeking to hold them responsible for her death, because the killer was on allegedly on electronic home monitoring at the time of the murder.
In June 2022, attorneys with the firm of Wise Morrissey, of Chicago, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court on behalf of Brandye McNair, identified as a relative and personal representative of the estate of Shanate Guy. The lawsuit accuses the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, under Sheriff Tom Dart, and the office of the Chief Judge of the Cook County Circuit Court, under Chief Judge Tim Evans, of willful and wanton conduct.
According to published reports, Guy died in June 2021 when her boyfriend, identified as Dominiko Johnson, entered her home and shot her to death. Johnson then allegedly killed himself in what police labeled a murder-suicide. McNair’s complaint alleged Johnson was able to murder Guy despite being previously charged with aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and placed in Cook County’s Electronic Monitoring Program.
Dart and Evans' offices have moved to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming they are immune to the lawsuit, because they have no specific duty as enforcers of the law to protect anyone from criminal acts.
In a May 31 filing, McNair responded to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, arguing the Tort Immunity Act places the burden of proving immunity on the accused. McNair said Dart and the County cited two 1994 cases to suggest “Illinois law is settled that, absent specific circumstances, the general duty to the public to which (McNair) alludes does not create any individual duty by a police department toward a specific person. The only exception to these sections is the special duty rule which imposes additional duties on government agents toward an individual.”
But McNair said a 2016 Illinois Supreme Court opinion, Coleman v. East Joliet Fire Protection District, abolished the “special duty” rule, noting it has been largely “supplanted by the legislature’s enactment of statutory immunities.” McNair agreed with Dart and the county that immunity applies when the conduct at issue is discretionary or required an exercise of judgment. But McNair's lawyers insisted the complaint alleged the issue was a failure to conduct the routine, nondiscretionary business of responding to Electronic Monitoring Program violations.
The initial complaint asserted the sheriff and chief judge placed Johnson into the electronic monitoring program even though they knew the program lacked the staff and resources to actually electronically monitor and intervene should he travel without permission. It alleged the sheriff’s office “received an average of 850 alerts per day” from the program, indicating those monitored likely were traveling without permission. But only 110 people were assigned to monitor and potentially respond.
“Chief Judge Evans’ motion should also be denied because his motion mistakenly relies upon the special duty exception and misstates the case law he attempts to rely upon,” McNair continued, noting Evans cited multiple cases that didn’t involve government bodies or public employees.
McNair also pointed to a 2023 Illinois First District Appellate Court opinion, Glover v. City of Chicago, in whch “two bar patrons got into a fight and the bar owner called the Chicago Police Department. When the police arrived, the bar patrons were summoned outside where one shot the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the Chicago Police Department asserting claims of negligence and willful and wanton conduct.”
The appeals panel said the allegations sufficiently established the common law duty of care and that the officers’ attempt to dismiss on grounds of immunity wasn’t able to be resolved at that early stage of litigation. Even if McNair’s complaint is, like Glover’s, determined to be imperfect, she maintained the same right to correct any imperfections during the pleading stage.
In response to the initial lawsuit, the sheriff’s office issued the following statement:
“Sheriff Dart has been adamant that electronic monitoring does not prevent violent offenders from continuing to engage in acts of violence. Despite these dire warnings violent offenders continue to be placed on electronic monitoring. Regardless, Sheriff’s personnel work tirelessly to monitor those ordered to the program and to prevent them from fleeing their charges or engaging in new crimes. Despite the tragedy, this lawsuit is without merit. The Sheriff’s Office will vigorously defend against what we believe are the complaint’s baseless allegations.”